When politicians are more interested in doing what it takes to get re-elected than they are in doing what they think is right, the system has to change. Listen to every political analyst and the congressman themselves. They talk about how things like Obamacare and world events and their stance on those things will get them re-elected. They don't care about whether or not what they say or do is right. They only care about if it will keep them in office. We need to impose term limits so that whether or not they are re-elected is no longer the be all end all.
And the argument of inexperience or not having enough time to get things done is ridiculous. Congressmen in their first terms have been working toward that end for decades. They know what they are doing and they have experienced people around them to help. And if there is a 2-4 term limit, that gives then 4-8 years to get something done. If it cannot be accomplished in that period of time, there is something seriously wrong.
It is very unfair that we have to follow ALL the rules and the get to follow some? Come on! A Congress member can be a murderer to you know. Just because they are in office of high demand does not change anything. It isn't right or it isn't fair.
Congress's approval ratings are pathetic, and elections just aren't cutting it. You can claim that people get voted out and politics moves on, but that is just not how it happens. You can claim that there would be a lack of experience, but after a year of getting used to a new system, people would start to acclimate. In the current Congress, people who don't have real jobs, who are in the pockets of large businesses and don't know what the public truly wants are in charge, and have the lowest approval rating of nearly every Congress in U.S. History. You can't claim that people would vote them out if they were bad, because that is clearly not how the system is working. I believe someone mentioned "If it isn't broken, don't fix it!" but this system clearly IS broken, and does need to be fixed.
It is apparently argued that non-favored congress men and women can be voted out, but this isn't true. Even though one can be impeached for bad behavior, or what not, who would go in next? These corrupted men and women are not voted out, but just replaced, and this is the root of my argument. How can these corrupt people be replaced if other campaigners don't have a chance to get heard? I imagine to become corrupt in the first place, these congressmen have to make some back-alley, shady deal that keeps them in office, or makes them a lobbyist, but either way they are ensuring that they stay in office. After all, that is how they make their living. And with these deals, they receive funds for their next campaign that can totally crush any other new campaigner's chances of getting into office. I feel like if there were term limits, this would weed out all of those "politicians" that are only in the game for money and power, and eventually replace the house with evolving and current representations of the public. Though, if this does prove to backfire in 50 or 100 years the people will re-ammend our government and constitution as they see fit. That's the point of democracy, to benefit the people now, and in the future.
They take office and get whatever they can for themselves. The longer they are there the more corrupt they become. I think better people would be in our government if they were there for a limited time. We would have less people looking to loot the tax payers. Congress is full of parasites right now.
The congressmen right now have been there too long - old ideas and prejudices still exist. By having term limits it would stop this altogether. New younger congressmen should agree with term limits before elections. These laws need to be changed, updated. I hope the American people take a vote to oust the elders.
Currently members of Congress are allowed unlimited terms. Such is a hindrance to democracy and should be resolved. I speak in favor of this amendment to limit MCs (Members of Congress) terms for several reasons. Firstly, longer serving MCs cease to provide new ideas for the advancement of the democracy. They stick to their older ideas that they brought with them when they were first elected and now need changing to better the state of the country. Secondly, they serve as a hindrance to new, younger, and more energetic aspiring lawmakers who seek a position in Congress. This prevents new idea from reaching Congress and does not provide any challenge to the older and obsolete ideas that reside in Congress. Thirdly, term limits prevent corruption from infesting our government and destroying it within. Imposing term limits will put a stop to the same corrupt politicians serving over and over again in Congress.
Knowing of our corrupt government and how horribly run America is we citizens should all be in favor of the congressional term limits. In order to succeed, a change is what we need. If we have the same same corrupt representatives elected every poll they will continue to struggle. New faces and apt learners is the right way to go.
There is an interesting documentary project on Kickstarter. They plan to explore Congress in depth and find out if Term Limits are the answer. Furthermore, they plan to research the disconnect between 12% approval ratings and how Congressman still manage to be re-elected over 90% of the time. This could be a really cool thing for anyone interested in this topic and American people in general. Http://www.Kickstarter.Com/projects/throwthebumsout/throw-the-bums-out
Lets face it, Our government is corrupt. Term limits will stop the same corrupted politicians from serving over and over again. Congressional elections are often looked over by the news and people alike. Having a fresh face will keep the public more interested and it can also make it harder for corrupted politicians to go unnoticed.
I thought the U.S was a free country. By putting term limits on congress you are taking our rights away. We live in a place where the government listens to us. Our people have common sense. If they want him/her back, so be it. If they don't, well obviously they won't vote for him. If they notice that a congress member is doing nothing, they'll vote him out. If they notice that he is corrupt, they'll vote him out.
There is no reason we should "fix something that isn't broken." If the congressmen are doing their job right, keep them. If not, they can be voted out. The citizens keep them in office for a reason! I also think that Presidents shouldn't have term limits either. Not worth fixing.
By putting congress in terms your getting the younger people to be the ones to make our big decisions in the state. Do you want our kid to be in congress when he's 21 or a 60 year old man doing it? The choice is yours so make it the best opinion you have.
1) Term limits will create an entire congress of little experience. Would you put "term limits" on policemen so that they have no incentive to become corrupt? Your police force would be filled with rookies who would make poor decisions, well meaning or not. Congress will similarly make poor decisions (notice the house is being driven by new tea party members) and will begin to learn from these decisions just as they are on the way out.
2) The power to change your representative is clearly in the hands of the people. If you don't like your congressman, vote him out. If the majority of your district likes him, well then you're out of luck. If the majority of the district is not paying attention to someone who should be voted out, well that's too bad to. Don't call in term limits as a babysitter for your civic responsibilities.
3) if you don't like THAT congressman the other district is voting in, well that's too bad too. You can limit his terms, but it doesn't mean they won't send someone you like more and he'll probably be apt to do stupider things as he lacks any real experience (see 1)
4) corruption? Hell, I'll take my 2 or 3 years, make some friends and go to work earlier for bigger money. I've got nothing invested in this job. No need to learn about legislating in congress. I'm out of here anyways. Tell me I've got the job, but only for a limited time and I see no reason to become good at my job. I'll start looking at my future options.
The bottom line is that term limits is a feel good option that you will bask in until you start calling to lift them once the capable people that could make a difference get chased out of town and the current congress can't tie their shoelaces.
One of the arguments for term limits is that it will curb corruption and help congress do what is “right.” Even if you get new congressmen and senators they will still be looking out for their interests and their party’s interest and re-election because that’s the nature of politics. New politicians arguably could be more corrupt because in order to get their foot in the door they are going to have to back scratch a little bit and are gonna do what they have to do to get elected. This is includes being backed by certain lobbyists that people in government are already backed by.
Term Limits doesn't represent the true will of the people and leads to voters swaying to one party for 8 years then to the next for another. What people actually think in the see-saw cycle of American politics. How can progress be achieved when you have 8 years max to do something which will be reversed by the next government in 8 years... Silly
There are some good points on the "for" side, in that while it wouldn't eliminate corruption, it would serve to limit the amount of damage a corrupt individual could do. However, term limits are not the problem with politics being rigged in this country.
The real problem with incumbency is our single-member district electoral system. If you can get rid of gerrymandering, that would force any candidate, regardless of affiliation, onto relatively equal ground. Also, everyone's vote would actually count. So long as politicians can alter lines on a map to rig elections, votes lack any kind of meaning. What I'm trying to say here is that through re-districting, the elections are won/lost years before anyone votes. And not only does it protect incumbents, but it virtually assures should the incumbent individual be ousted for any reason, they will simply be replaced with someone exactly like them, with the exact same policies and ideas. IE different face, same crap.
If you want a real solution, drop the single-member district electoral system, and adopt a proportional representation system.
The common belief from the Pro side of this debate seem to be that Congress is corrupt, and needs to be fixed, because the longer someone stays in Congress, the more corrupt they become. I believe that is both an unfair blanket statement, and also a genuinely incorrect assumption of human nature. While it is true that corruption exists in the government, the power of selecting the officials who would become corrupt still lies with the people. We are, after all, a representative democracy - run by the people, for the people. Therefore, if it is the will of the people to have their Congressman - even a corrupt one - stay in office for ten, twenty, even fifty years, then why should laws be enacted to stop that will? I also argue that if a Congressman can become more corrupt the longer he stays in office, then he can also become just as experienced in that same amount of time. And while experience doesn't do the best job of generating new ideas, the older ideas do help to balance out what would be an overflow of new ones. This is necessary because not all new agendas are good ones, and the last thing we need is an influx of inexperienced politicians providing a lot of new ideas that may be more detrimental to the country than the old ones.
There's a reason Congress doesn't have term limits. Don't you think that when they implemented term limits on the president, they didn't think about term limits on Congress? They didn't impose term limits because the American people can tell if they have a good Congress and by implementing term limits, they don't have a choice but to say good-bye.
I just dont understand why we have to wipe away our whole congress board because of what? They have been there too long? Sure the president has a term limit, who wants Obama or any president for that matter to "lead" our country until he/she dies? That would be a big mess, nearly half of the country would be frustrated because NO ELECTED PRESIDENT has had 100% votes. Congress is a different story, we need to have a stabilized congress that we are familiar with and that they are familiar with. It's common sense. In addition it would cost a lot of our money and waste too much of all of our time.